Qt Going GPL

summer was the first to note that it looks like Qt 2.2 will be released under the GPL. This removes the licensing problem that is central to the age old (and very boring) KDE/GNOME flamewar. There's still nothing official appearing on Troll Tech's site, but this looks reasonable.

Comments

gnome is language-neutral

[mattdm]

Sure, most of the gnome core is C. But the whole environment is designed to be language neutral -- you can write Gnome applications in Python, or Perl, or whatever.

--

Re:Except Qt is copylefted.

[bockman]

QT Professional Licence costs are not a big issue for proprietary development, since the cost of one developer for a few days covers more than enough for it. So all Trolltech shall do is to convince managers that they can reduce work costs choosing QT over alternative free-as-in-beer toolkits.

IMO, big companies will still prefer GTK+, however, because they wouldn't like depending on Trolltech for strategic issues like a GUI toolkit.

dept: its-about-frigging-time

[Karma Sucks]

Good attitude, Commander. Troll Tech should be praised and thanked for bending backwards and forwards for the community like this. We really do not need your snide remarks here. Will GPL'ed Qt improve KDE acceptance by the community? I certainly hope so. I've always been a KDE fan and user regardless. Now I hope that KDE can compete with GNOME on purely technical grounds and not depend on who can shout louder in the PR wars.

Re:dept: its-about-frigging-time

[PiMan]

Qt has, since 2.0, been Free Software and Open Source. The issue is not Qt alone, it's that KDE and Qt's licenses are seen to be incompatible.

Unfortunately, a significant number of people have obfuscated the issue to say Qt is not free, which unfortunately hurts the free software and open source movements.

Re:dept: its-about-frigging-time

[GrafZahl]

Even more so: Is this not a prove that commercial interests and pressure can lead to an Open Source Development?

To me it seems that Troll Tech will take this step because they see that some big commercial players have decided to go Gnome rather than KDE for the reason of being Open Source.

The good and right reaction is to go Open Source as well. Because 'proprietary' pieces of software will in the long term not be able to compete with OSS.

So let's celebrate this as a success fpr Open Source!

May the best Desktop Manager win!!!!

Graf Zahl

Trolls

[tooth]

Does this mean that people trolling in the KDE vs GNOME posts will have to get a bit more imaginative? Gawd, I hope so...

Well, I guess we're going to be forced to rate each one on it's merits now. What a strange concept! It feels... kinky :)

Re:Oh, DEBIAN GOOD!

[xelah]

When QT becomes GPL, KDE won't be able to be put in debian only because of this. Before this can be done, any program has to fully under the GPL or fully under QPL.

I don't think that's true. You can quite easily have a program which uses Qt (under the QPL), an LGPL library (eg, the KDE libraries) and is itself licenced under a variety of other possible licences (eg BSD, GPL with exception caluse for linking to Qt, etc) and remain definitely legal.

Programs which main-code is qpl and using libraries under gpl are still illegal, until the program itself is gpl.

Such programs might infringe the GPL author's copyright, so there may indeed be a problem if he chose to sue. Assuming, that is, that dynamic linking produces a 'derived work' which I personally don't think is true. Since the only significant code out there under the QPL is Qt which is now dual licenced I don't think this is a problem anyway...

KDE itself is a mixture of licences. The libraries are LGPL, so you can link a BSD licenced program to the KDE libraries and Qt with no problems. Much of the rest of KDE is GPL with some portions BSD licenced. Since anything which is BSD licenced satisifies the conditions of the GPL (in fact, the BSD licence is such that I believe you can relicence code under the GPL (or a closed source licence) if you want to) that doesn't present a problem either.

There shouldn't now be any problem with Debian including all of KDE now, as far as I can see. Previously there was no problem with including KDE libraries anyway, but they didn't all the same.

Re:Geez! Can we please kiss and make up already!

[Bruce Perens]

I am not apoligizing for waving the red flag. It needed to be waved and the result has been excellent. When you ask people to make changes, and they make them, it's right to say thank-you and cease hostilities. What I am objecting to is that people who don't even understand what is going on have continued to fight long after the fight is over.

Bruce

Geez! Can we please kiss and make up already!

[Bruce Perens]

OK, I'm responsible for stirring this up long ago. But I endorsed the QPL, publicly thanked Troll Tech, and called off hostilities a long time ago. Yes, we had a license conflict issue that has now been dealt with.

Troll Tech has done everything necessary to accomodate the requests of the free software community. They have my sincere thanks, and should have yours, too.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Geez! Can we please kiss and make up already!

[On Lawn]

Well, if I still had the URL I'd love to post the greatest KDE liscencing flame war, the one that brought slashdot to its knees for almost a week, the one you wrote. Its still a good classic read for people who think that Slashdot is only now going downhill.

I never thought at the time though that I'd see the events that I've seen since then, let alone this post. But like the one a long time ago this seems to be like going to a charred building and screaming "Fire" with a gasoline can and a match.

Things were settled for most people then by an excellent Freshmeat essay on how the CDE and OpenLook wars almost killed UNIX. Most everyone felt good about letting things go on their merry way until your post brought it to a new idealogical and mud slinging level. Even then the issue was more your integrity as a even handed leader after showing such childish predjudice more than the QT liscencing.

And now that its GPLed you scream something needs to be done to make peace, and your sorry? I'm glad. Its good to see. But once again a little self important and too late.

But most of us really are moving on with our lives quite nicely without really much concern over this liscencing issue. I do publicly thank your in your efforts that made QT liscencing more friendly to our scheme of software development. You deserve thanks, but yelling sorry for being the kid who turned the lights out when the city went dark is kind of, well, you know...

Re:A GPL Windows/QT could fork from the free codeb

[Bruce Perens]

This is questionable from a GPL-compliance standpoint, until you have a GPL or LGPL Qt that runs on Windows.

Bruce

Re:FSF now prefers Qt/KDE over Gtk/Gnome

[Eladio McCormick]

But given that FSF prefer libraries to be covered by the GPL rather than the LGPL, they should now consider Qt preferable over Gtk.

I don't think so.

The idea behind the RMS editorial you're thinking about is that the GPL is preferable when you are providing functionality not available in other libraries. The LGPL is meant for situations where you provide functionality that the non-free competition already provides.

Since there's plenty of GUI toolkits around, free or otherwise, I don't think it matters a bit. And, since Troll will sell you licenses to develop non-free software with Qt, the whole RMS anti-LGPL argument is kinda demolished in this case.

But this is all speculation, isn't it?

We have a level playing field

[tjwhaynes]

At last KDE and Gnome can go completely head-to-head because they are now both totally grounded in GPL licensing. So what does the future now hold?

Corporate take-up? Don't knock it - this is a potentially huge environment. Companies like to know where they stand, and simplified licensing is a huge bonus. Gnome already as a level of corporate acceptance as embodied by the formation of the Gnome Foundation to further the GNOME project. KDE may soon see itself in a similar position.

Interoperability? Both KDE and Gnome are continuing to push their infrastructures forward and both desktop environments are likely to start eclipsing the competition sooner or later (already have eclipsed the competition in some areas). It's likely that Gnome programs will always talk most efficiently to other Gnome programs, and similarly for KDE to KDE, it would be nice to see the arrival of some bridge mechanism to allow the two camps to exchange and inter-embed each others applications across the divide.

Flamewars? Almost certainly :-) At least now there won't be any (meaningful) wars over licensing ...

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Announcement on Troll Techs site.

[shaka]

Look again!
There are two new announcements; Qt 2.2 released and Qt/Unix 2.2 being released under the GPL.

Re:Announcement on Troll Techs site.

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to be released under multiple licenses. The Commercial license, the QPL and the GPL. Note that it is only the Qt free edition under the GPL, the windows version and Qt/Embedded are still ofcourse not under the GPL. That's still more than fair considering there doesn't have to be a free edition at all, besides which trolltech do have to make a living.

GPL not LGPL

[Tet]

Interesting choice. Going for the full GPL pleases the extremists, but it also has the side effect of allowing Troll Tech to protect their revenue stream. If they'd made it LGPL, then people could develop and sell proprietarty (closed source) apps using Qt. Being GPL prevents that, thus pleasing both sides. Those wanting to go that route can still purchase a Qt Professional Edition license from Troll Tech (something you had to do under the QPL anyway).

Left it a little late.

[not_cub]

"Eeek, gnome's catching up on us. Quick, GPL it".

I think they may have missed the bus on this one. If they had released Qt under GPL earlier, the whole KDE/gnome idiotic split could have been avoided.

Why is it companies never open source stuff when things are going their way? (eg Netscape waited til Microsoft had them by the balls).

not_cub

Debian

[pyth]

ARRGGHHH!!! Why does every good thing happen _after_ a Debian release!?!?!?

GPL virus has yeat another victim

[nchip]

For immedeate release 4th september 2000

The widespread virus called 'GPL' is spreading at alarming rate. Because most patients don't notice any symptoms, 'GPL' has managed to lurk it's way into so many lines of code, that many anylysts believe that all other copyright forms are about to become extinct. RMS, the author of the virus, has been spotted partying like a wild animal and laughing his beard off.

End of OTT accusations?

[divec]

This is good news all round, and should hail the end of a lot of divisive mudslingling. Those who claimed that Troll's aim was to split the free software community are proven wrong; their aim was to make profit and when the GNOME foundation shifted the playing field their actions changed correspondingly. It should also show that the FSF and Debian were anti-QPL and not anti-Troll/KDE:

"I am very pleased to see that Qt is now available under the GPL," said Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation. "This is a big win for free software and a great gift from Trolltech to the community.

"Debian is excited to see Trolltech take this step," said Wichert Akkerman, leader of the Debian project. "This will encourage the acceptance of Qt as a building block for free software.

A GPL Windows/QT could fork from the free codebase

[maynard]

There's nothing stopping developers from forking the FreeQT codebase to create a new Windows based QT. Frankly, I think the Windows port of QT is one of the best advantages of QT over GTK+. Windows support with GTK is still in it's infancy while QT is quite usable.

The way to bring Windows desktop users over to Free Software is to create cross platform Apps which reduce the need for Windows as a base platform in order to create a migration path for users. That means porting the new StarOffice and KOffice to Windows, giving users a chance to feel comfortable with the new environment, and then waiting for the next costly Windows upgrade to convince the users "there's a cheaper way..."

QT/Unix only

[MostlyHarmless]

(from the spoilsport dept.)

Large caveat: This applies only to QT free edition; that is, QT/Unix. Those who wish to develop cross-platform applications will still have to look elsewhere for their toolkit.

Note: Don't bother replying with flames about GTK+ sucking for Windoze. At least the port exists, is free software, and has the chance to improve eventually.

--

FSF now prefers Qt/KDE over Gtk/Gnome

[Per Abrahamsen]

Well, I have seen no announcement to that effect. But given that FSF prefer libraries to be covered by the GPL rather than the LGPL, they should now consider Qt preferable over Gtk.

Since companies like Red Hat have a interest in promoting development af Linux software, free or unfree, they should still have an interest in Gtk, because the LGPL allows their customers to develop unfree applications.

Reasons from GPLing from the authors

[FattMattP]

Freshmeat has an article by the Troll Tech guys talking about why they decided to go GPL.

Another win for freedom of choice!

[Per Abrahamsen]

> I thought OSS was about *freedom*, freedom
> of choice.

Well, Qt 2.2 gives the developer the *choice* of two licenses, QPL or GPL. Qt 2.0 only offered one license, the QPL. So it seems to me that the freedom of choice has increased, not decreased, with this announcement.

Except Qt is copylefted.

[yerricde]

Because Free Qt is copylefted (choice of QPL or GNU GPL), companies still have to pay the Trolls to be able to port their proprietary winsoftware to free*n?x. GTK+ on the other hand, is lesser copylefted under LGPL; it will be more popular for proprietary apps such as your precious games.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Re:Doesn't solve all the problems

[RPoet]

If anything, the GPL licensing of Qt is an encouragement for "big corporations" to GPL their own Qt based software! Don't say this won't happen, because it will, it has, and it IS happening.

The GPL licensing of Qt will be our guarantee that the KDE desktop will remain free and that we won't end up depending on one or more proprietary, closed-source components, which the LGPL would have permitted. After all, is not free software why most of us became Linux converts?

Do not disregard Trolltechs announcement. Today might be the happiest day of the Linux desktop! Oh, the euphoria!
--

Re:GNOME Foundation helping KDE

[scrytch]

> As some people had predicted, the formation of the GNOME Foundation is having more of an effect on KDE than the KDE leaders had claimed possible

1. KDE is already GPL
   
2. Troll Tech does not produce KDE
   
3. Troll Tech does not make reactionary rush decisions, and probably had this in their pocket for some time.
   
4. Troll Tech has produced a usable product. The GNOME foundation has produced press releases.
   
5. I speculate that a letter from RMS explaining how the GPL (as opposed to LGPL) would protect their "free software only" clause had a lot more to do with it than flaming cretins on slashdot.